BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:08:46 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
In the whole debate about whether neonics kill bees, there seems to be a lot of shouting and very little listening.  Positions seem to be polarized into opposites: Neonics kill bees or neonics don't kill bees, with little middle ground. 

It does not take much thought or reading to to conclude that neonics do kill bees.   

In some specific situations, they kill a lot of bees, but in the larger scheme of things, there does not seem to be any evidence that this happens often or on a large scale where they are properly applied and beekeepers are careful.  It is hard to find obvious cases where the products are properly applied and serious harm to managed colonies or much economic loss has occurred.  There are a few notable exceptions that have been part of the learning curve.  This was not the picture with many of the older insecticides that neonics replace.  Some of them made economic bee kills regularly and often.

The harm debate seems to follow the same pattern, with extreme polarization, but to me the matter is much more subtle and possibly _not_ capable of being resolved with any certainty, regardless of what anyone says.  Read on.

The problem is that (to my knowledge) there are no methods that would reliably a 5% or 10% overall effect on lifespan, crop, or wintering success over time with moral certainty, especially given the small sample sizes possible, the (in)accuracy of measurement methods, the typical signal to noise ratios, the many confounding factors, the subjective component, and the statistical methods used to reach conclusions.

While perhaps it is possible in a lab, nailing down subtle differences is impossible in the field.  Larger effects can be proven more easily, but 5% and 10% effects are similar in magnitude to, or even smaller than, the inevitable errors.  

The thing is that for many purposes, such a minor hit is not noticeable and can be considered negligible -- perhaps -- BUT for the commercial beekeeper who maybe gets to keep only 10% to 20% of total production income after expenses, _a hit of 5% is 25% of his or her take home pay and 10% is half!_

That is why some people care and will keep wondering.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2